Amazing, moving, beautiful, and not a horror-movie

Rating: Null/10 (1 July 2003)

There are some anencephalites elsewhere on this page who have claimed this movie was awful; clearly they just didn't get it. I bid you to take their reviews as something born of disillusionment rather than as the fruit of reliable criticism. Some have asserted that 28 Days Later was neither scary, nor thoroughly entertaining; they have claimed that the `infected' are akin to zombies and that one need not bother here if he/she has seen Night of the Living Dead; so too they have criticized the name `rage' (that of the movie's relevant virus) as being inane, plain, trite, etc. These critics missed the point entirely. But I don't pin the blame on them.
This movie was billed as a horror, sci-fi; it is neither! - this is a critical point. This is a low budget, artsy film, shot entirely in digital. Its purpose is not to scare the viewer, but to make him/her think, to realize - and this process is something generally undesirable to the average horror-movie seeking patron, at least when they are at the movies (i.e., one goes for the brainless excitement, a horror movie is a ride akin to space-mountain, etc.) This movie should in no way be considered, and certainly should not be criticized, from this horror-movie point of view. But, as it was a product of Fox, and we all know their predilections for visual entertainment, it was listed as such. So to say something positive: this movie is in fact amazing. Anyone who has read Camus' novels, or even has an interest in quasi-existentialist themes would enjoy this movie thoroughly. It is not honestly existentialist, but it raises existentialist questions. Its purpose is to show that humans, specifically humankind's proclivity for rage (hence the virus name, which is perfect here), for violence, and endless killing (as the film's army commander points out), is ruining us; it will eventually succeed in wiping us out entirely. Our species is but a spec in universal time, a spec which will eventually be washed away by the ceaseless locomotion of the invisible clock (another point mentioned in the movie). Thus, we are unspeakably fragile, in every sense. I have not seen a film EVER which so perfectly captures this point - and I have seen a lot of films. I know this is a lot of sentimental crap; I know normal people don't read Camus and similarly don't pay attention, and thus don't respond well to, existential crises; rather they pay attention to electric bills and read Clive Cussler books and Conde Nast Magazines. So, in essence, this movie is not for everyone. This film is, in fact, a film, it is not a movie - and it is certainly, as I said, not a horror-movie - just as literature is not the same as a run of the mill novel. As a New York Times literary critic has said: novels can be understood with common knowledge, but literature requires an alternate form of acquiring and processing information, which is taught within the pages of the work. So too is this film; and it teach much, and does it well. This is why I have labeled many of my fellow reviewers as anencephalites: because they really do lack a necessary part of the brain - at least for the comprehension of this film!
It is, in sum, a delight for anyone who is, like me (who majored in Philosophy, History and English in college) impractically minded, and who is, as such, interested in the subterranean but doubtless inherent problems of mankind. If Danny Boyle is reading: I understood you, and thank you; this film is wonderful. It entirely makes up for The Beach. *****